Dozens of US cities may have entire neighbourhoods bulldozed as part of drastic "shrink to survive" proposals being considered by the Obama administration to tackle economic decline...

Having outlined his strategy to Barack Obama during the election campaign, Mr Kildee has now been approached by the US government and a group of charities who want him to apply what he has learnt to the rest of the country.

Mr Kildee said he will concentrate on 50 cities, identified in a recent study by the Brookings Institution, an influential Washington think-tank, as potentially needing to shrink substantially to cope with their declining fortunes.

Most are former industrial cities in the "rust belt" of America's Mid-West and North East. They include Detroit, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Baltimore and Memphis.

Don’t fault us baby boomers; for the most part, we were the ones at the march on DC yesterday telling these folks we did not want government controlled everything. But actually there were all age groups there.

Most are former industrial cities (run into the ground economically by Democrats) in the "rust belt" of America's Mid-West and North East. They include Detroit, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Baltimore and Memphis.

“Myself, I favor Rush Limbaughs time-honored approach, e.g. to failed
states like Albania: Dont touch it as it decays; leave it alone as
a massive, objective and visual lesson about the dangers of one-party
politics and control.”

Jackson, Mississippi

56
posted on 09/13/2009 2:01:28 AM PDT
by dixiechick2000
("This is a revolution, dammit! We're going to have to offend somebody!")

“You’re confusing people who want to bring Europe to America with commies. There’s a big difference.”

Not really...
For the most part they are one and the same. Socialists in academia...

The difference is that what was “Urban Planning” in the 70’s has become a core belief and goal of today’s Radical Socialist Democrat. They want it for POLITICAL CONTROL, not for any policy ends. Read the writings and the quotes of the people pulling these strings today, and you cannot come to any other conclusion.

In the Article I quoted, take note of the statement:

“In many places, overcoming public perception of negative implications of density is the most critical aspect of supporting green neighborhoods.”

“Overcoming public perception”...
Now why would Americans have the “Public perception” that land ownership is better than living ‘High-Density”? Because have the lessons of “High Density living” already before us, from the Concrete housing blocs of the Soviet Union, to the high-rise, crime-ridden ghetto’s like Cabrini Green in large American cities, from Johnson’s “Great Society”.

And because we are, at heart, a nation of INDIVIDUALISTS, not Communes. We live in a nation so large, that people could go their entire lives, until VERY recently, and never meet someone who was born outside of America.

Americans are VERY unlike Europeans in a very important aspect. Most Americans look to THEMSELVES FIRST, for solutions to problems, while Europeans have always expected Government, or THE KING, or somesuch, to provide the solution. And over significantly smaller distances.

61
posted on 09/13/2009 2:04:15 AM PDT
by tcrlaf
("Hope" is the most Evil of all Evils"-Neitzsche)

“In essence, the bank loses its priority rights to the property which have been hypothecated as security for the loan and the bank is reduced to the status of a general creditor and thus defenseless to the whim of the bankruptcy judge.”

They’ve already done this to the bondholders of Government Motors.

It’s a pattern...

62
posted on 09/13/2009 2:05:17 AM PDT
by dixiechick2000
("This is a revolution, dammit! We're going to have to offend somebody!")

I favor Rush Limbaughs time-honored approach, e.g. to failed states like Albania: Dont touch it as it decays; leave it alone as a massive, objective and visual lesson about the dangers of one-party politics and control.

Look at the policies for the last 30-40 years. Sure that generation didn’t have control during the first half but you have for the last 20. Runaway government spending, over the top regulation, and interference from the federal level.

Oh and I’m a war vet too.

70
posted on 09/13/2009 2:15:26 AM PDT
by driftdiver
(I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)

For the most part Americans are the Europeans who didn’t want the government welfare plan. People came here from all over the world because of what the opportunity here. For what they could build, not for what the govt would give them.

well until recently.

75
posted on 09/13/2009 2:21:12 AM PDT
by driftdiver
(I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)

Term limits and end the gerrymandering. Force turnover and eliminate the established power base these fools have.

Term limits are unconstitutional. They are a means of voting out of office people that you could not otherwise vote for or against. I voted for term limits in California solely on the basis of getting Willie Brown out of Sacramento. The clowns who replaced him were not any better and Willie moved on to a different elected position.

The more turnover you have in elected positions, the deeper the power of the background bureaucracy retains. It's a trade off.

The founding fathers really did it right. They arranged the electoral college so that a handful of major population centers couldn't monopolize the presidency. They arranged the Senate so that not only would all states be equal, the rules were designed to delay and slow down legislation. They limited the power of the federal government and provided for checks and balances within it to further weaken it.

Indeed gerrymandering is a problem. My own home town of San Luis Obispo, CA has been gerrymandered into alien districts (either Monterrey or Santa Barbara) much of my life, thus mostly depriving us of representation in Congress. I'm not sure there's any way to solve that.

The only way to really solve the problem is to eliminate the bait. The last 21 years (post-Reagan) have been disastrous. Power increasingly has been concentrating in Washington DC. For all the good President Reagan did, he was unable to keep his campaign promise to eliminate the Department of Propaganda^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HEducation established by perhaps the weakest President of the century the preceding term.

A history lesson for any kids out there: President Reagan submitted 8 budgets to Congress. How many of them were (gleefully) declared Dead On Arrival by Democrat congressional leaders? (A: Every one of them).

The only way to reverse the trend is to remove the money and power out of DC and realistically, it just isn't going to happen. President Reagan couldn't do it and he had an overwhelming mandate.

Well, if you want to lay at our feet the fact that most of us were working to build better families, and better (and more) jobs, and the fact that we neglected to keep an eye on the hippies/commies who infiltrated our universities...then I guess we are at fault. Most of us were a tad busy being good Americans, who didn’t want hand outs, who didn’t want welfare, and who dang well don’t want to go on medicare, but we have to.

What has your generation done to help...if anything at all?

77
posted on 09/13/2009 2:23:50 AM PDT
by dixiechick2000
("This is a revolution, dammit! We're going to have to offend somebody!")

As time and generations slide by, it becomes less and less “Important” to teach about the horrors that have been wrought upon mankind by those acting in the name of “Socialism”.

Other things begin to take priority, with buzzwords like “Diversity”, or “Emotional Equality”. “Learning Outcomes” become more important than performance grades.

It’s always up to the previous generations to teach the ones coming up the mistakes of the past, but sometimes, it takes a good kick in the ass to drive that message home. And often, that lesson can come at great cost.

Those of us old enough to remember the Carter Years already knew what was coming if Hillary OR Obama got elected with a radical Democrat-run Congress. Some of us prepared for it. The causes for it have been well-documented over the years on FR, as are the warnings.

Many will have to learn the hard way, yet again, that Darwin can be a real biatch, and that feel-good policy anecdotes, and empty rhetoric about “HOPE!” and “CHANGE” do not feed a hungry family.

In many ways, that is OUR FAULT. We may have taught OUR children, but who was teaching everyone else’s??

80
posted on 09/13/2009 2:26:52 AM PDT
by tcrlaf
("Hope" is the most Evil of all Evils"-Neitzsche)

I recall watching a National Geographic special about some tribe in the Amazon, when their “village” became infested with bugs and the soil played out , they simply burned the old one and moved a few clicks into the New Village. After a couple hundred years the old site will ready for recolinization.

“Most of us were a tad busy being good Americans, who didnt want hand outs, who didnt want welfare, and who dang well dont want to go on medicare, but we have to.”

Absolutely, but while you were focused on the job and family the hippies were taking over the nation. Its not only your generations fault though. Not many others have done much for fear of being branded as some kind of bad person by the liberal power brokers.

This problem has been growing for years. Perhaps yesterday will wake enough people up from their complacency. I don’t think it will.

82
posted on 09/13/2009 2:32:13 AM PDT
by driftdiver
(I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)

I think that is key to your post. I’ve been warning young ones about the coming Carter on steroids years, but they don’t get it. You and I lived through it, but even though that is so, many won’t believe what we’ve said about it.

“We may have taught OUR children, but who was teaching everyone elses??”

That has gobsmacked me...I can’t understand why other parents haven’t taught their children these lessons.

However, why is that OUR fault?

I suspect there are young ones here who have no idea what they are in for.

85
posted on 09/13/2009 2:34:13 AM PDT
by dixiechick2000
("This is a revolution, dammit! We're going to have to offend somebody!")

Those of us old enough to remember the Carter Years already knew what was coming if Hillary OR Obama got elected with a radical Democrat-run Congress.

Nonsense. Hillary! was clearly the lesser of two evils. So many people hate her that she would never had the presidential "honeymoon". Do not forget the campaign promise in 1996 that we would get to see the "real Algore and Hillary!" during a 2nd Clinton term. It vanished into the memory hole with all the Clinton scandals, but so also did much of his "mandate".

Rush knew exactly what he was doing with his Operation Chaos. It was a win-win situation.

A President Hillary! would be facing the same kind of opposition that is occurring now, except that it would be from people much more hardened in their opposition to her personally and she wouldn't have nearly as strong of a political base as this current administration appears to have.

The progressive movement can be traced back that far. It wasnt really a power until the last 50 years though.

You're both right, though I would date the "progressive movement" back to FDR. The last innocent[1] President we had was President Taft. His successor, reelected on the basis of "He Kept Us Out Of War!!!", gave us World War I, the Federal Reserve and the IRS. The only president who tried to reverse any of that was President Kennedy, who was assassinated a few months after attempting to restore silver notes by executive order. A close second was President Reagan and he suffered a nearly successful assassination attempt as well.

[1] Innocent meaning - not trying to expand the power of the Federal Government.

How is this a win-win? Hillary would have been far better than BO. And that is a scary scary situation.

Would you explain what you mean when you say that Hillary would have been far better than BO. How is this current healthcare plan worse than what she attempted to force upon US when she was co-president.

I do not see a dimes worth of difference in the politics of Hillary versus BamaKennedy. Both are ruthless and both believe they are owed, and both think they can do anything better than anyone else. And both were trained Alinskmites.

Yes, as I pointed out. There were two possible outcomes for Operation Chaos - Hillary! wins (and she cannot be an effective President because of all the people who hate her), or Obama is weakened.

If the Republican ticket had been reversed, Palin/McCain, we would all have had an easier time saying "that Vice Presidential Candidate really sucks Governor Palin, but we'll vote for you anyway." than vice versa.

The US is desperate for change. We want another President Reagan. Someone to get out of our way and just let us continue being an economic superpower.

Would you explain what you mean when you say that Hillary would have been far better than BO.

I tried to explain that. Hillary! is a polarizing figure and many, many people hate her. There is very little middle ground with her. She wouldn't have had much if any presidential "honeymoon" and she would definitely have done much less damage than BS has done so far due to all the hardened opposition. Gridlock Is Good.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.